US v. Gotti, CR-90-1051.
Decision Date | 09 January 1991 |
Docket Number | No. CR-90-1051.,CR-90-1051. |
Citation | 755 F. Supp. 1157 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John GOTTI, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
John Gleeson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. and Arthur N. Eisenberg, New York Civ. Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiff.
Bruce Cutler, New York City, for Gotti.
David Greenfield, New York City, for Locascio.
Gerald Shargel, New York City, for Gravano.
Michael Rosen, New York City, for Gambino.
The New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") requested this court, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on January 8, 1991, to issue an order directing counsel for the parties in this case to show cause on January 9, 1991 at 4:30 p.m., why this court should not also issue an order permitting it to file an accompanying memorandum of law as amicus curiae in connection with the defendants' motion seeking pretrial release or, in the alternative, an order modifying the conditions of their pretrial confinement. The order to show cause it requested the court to issue would have provided that answering papers be served upon the NYCLU on or before 3:00 p.m. on the 8th of January which it is assumed was intended to read the 9th of January.
This court is not aware of any rule or statute that prescribes the procedure for obtaining leave to file an amicus brief in the district court nor is this court aware of any rule or statute which furnishes standards to guide the court in determining whether leave to file an amicus brief should be granted.
Rule 29 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure makes explicit provision for the filing of an amicus brief. It provides:
If guidance were to be sought from that Rule the request to file such brief here would be denied. Not only was the brief not accompanied by the written consent of either party, but the motion for leave to file one fails to state any reason why an amicus brief is desirable beyond stating that several constitutional provisions are implicated by the issues raised by the defendants' motion.
Judicial commentary on the role of amicus curiae may be found in Alexander v. Hall, 64 F.R.D. 152 (D.S.C.1974). The phrase amicus curiae means, literally, "friend of the court," serving for the benefit of the court and for the purpose of assisting the court in cases of general public interest. The literal translation of the phrase does not always accurately translate in fact. The court in Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567 (1st Cir.1970) observed, at page 569, that "by the nature of things an amicus is not normally impartial" and went on to add in footnote 2 on that page: "As an attorney of an acquaintance once told the court, when asked for his response to the argument of the amicus `That fellow isn't any more a friend of the court than I am.'" Other functions served by amicus curiae are to provide supplementary assistance to existing counsel and insuring a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision. Since an amicus is not a party to the litigation, but participates only to assist the court, the extent to which, if at all, an amicus should be permitted to participate lies solely within the discretion of the court. 64 F.R.D. at 155.
The court is deeply troubled, however, by another aspect of this request to file an amicus brief. The order to show cause was submitted to the court for signature in chambers during a brief recess of a jury trial. Unfortunately, a court reporter was not present to record the colloquy between the court and counsel for the NYCLU, which, in essence, was as follows: The court asked why it was necessary to be burdened by an additional submission when the defendants were represented by competent counsel (who, it should be added, filed an excellent memorandum of law in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryant v. Better Bus. Bureau of Greater Maryland, Civil No. AMD 95-970.
...of the suit, Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir.1970), or existing counsel is in need of assistance, United States v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y.1991); News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox, 700 F.Supp. 30, 32 (S.D.Fla.1988) (quoting Donovan v. Gillmor, 535 F.Supp. 154, 15......
-
Tafas v. Dudas
...must be totally disinterested.'" Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D.Pa.1995) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y.1991) and Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm, 834 F.Supp. 1410, 1413 (W.D.N.Y.1993)). Therefore, t......
-
In re Meinen
...courts can ascertain the propriety of, the participation of amicus curiae or the content of amicus briefs. See United States v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y.1991). Nevertheless, a body of caselaw has developed regarding standards pertaining to the participation of entities as amic......
-
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George's Cnty. Council Sitting as the Dist. Council
...Inc. v. City of York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D.Pa. 1995); Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970); United States v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox, 700 F.Supp. 30, 32 (S.D.Fla. 1988)). Here, the motions filed by Howard County and A......
-
Chapter 12 - § 12.6 • AMICUS BRIEFS
...ensure "a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision." United States v. Gotti, 755 F. Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). As a practical matter, counsel for a party may contact organizations whose interests may be at issue in a case to ......